Never heard of this game. I guess it's one which relies on skill in connecting foot to ball?

It does require that skill at times. Yes.

But less than rugby does.

Depends on how poor the teams' offenses and defenses are. No offense, and your punter is on the field all day. No defense, and their kicker is on the field all day. If applying foot to ball is your criteria for a worthy sport, you should take a second look... cricket-boy

No, applying foot to ball is the biggest criteria for a sport calling itself 'football'.

So what do people do on a cricket pitch? Sit around and chirp for 6 hours?

Throw - hit - run. It's a more structured, more developed form of baseball

I would say American Football is a more structured, more developed form of rugby. From what I've seen of rugby it's about the same, only the kicking game, liked most things in American Football is a set play, rather than in the flow of the match like in rugby.

The kicking game in Rugby can be a set play, for penalties and conversions. Personally, I prefer rugby over that American game because there are less set-plays: it has more flow to it (and also because the players are skillful enough to play safely without 6 inches of protective clothing ).

Anyway, apologies for hijacking this thread, I'll let you get on with discussing your sport in peace.

The padding is more because Football (and I will still call it football despite your complaints) is less about running and more about hitting. The hitting is far more fierce in football than rugby on a regular basis. Plays are more precise and and more physical. Some feel that the football helmet is actually the reason there are so many concussions in the NFL. Players are more willing to stick the head into someone with a helmet on than without one.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

I would say American Football is a more structured, more developed form of rugby. From what I've seen of rugby it's about the same, only the kicking game, liked most things in American Football is a set play, rather than in the flow of the match like in rugby.

The kicking game in Rugby can be a set play, for penalties and conversions. Personally, I prefer rugby over that American game because there are less set-plays: it has more flow to it (and also because the players are skillful enough to play safely without 6 inches of protective clothing ).

Anyway, apologies for hijacking this thread, I'll let you get on with discussing your sport in peace.

The padding is more because Football (and I will still call it football despite your complaints) is less about running and more about hitting. The hitting is far more fierce in football than rugby on a regular basis. Plays are more precise and and more physical. Some feel that the football helmet is actually the reason there are so many concussions in the NFL. Players are more willing to stick the head into someone with a helmet on than without one.

Players are precise in rugby: precise so they can tackle without risk of injury to either player but giving themselves the best chance of gaining the ball. They can tackle effectively without putting their heads in. If you don't need to hit somebody hard to bring them down, why bother, when you can just take their legs?

I would say American Football is a more structured, more developed form of rugby. From what I've seen of rugby it's about the same, only the kicking game, liked most things in American Football is a set play, rather than in the flow of the match like in rugby.

The kicking game in Rugby can be a set play, for penalties and conversions. Personally, I prefer rugby over that American game because there are less set-plays: it has more flow to it (and also because the players are skillful enough to play safely without 6 inches of protective clothing ).

Anyway, apologies for hijacking this thread, I'll let you get on with discussing your sport in peace.

The padding is more because Football (and I will still call it football despite your complaints) is less about running and more about hitting. The hitting is far more fierce in football than rugby on a regular basis. Plays are more precise and and more physical. Some feel that the football helmet is actually the reason there are so many concussions in the NFL. Players are more willing to stick the head into someone with a helmet on than without one.

Players are precise in rugby: precise so they can tackle without risk of injury to either player but giving themselves the best chance of gaining the ball. They can tackle effectively without putting their heads in. If you don't need to hit somebody hard to bring them down, why bother, when you can just take their legs?

Skill position players have gotten very adept at avoiding leg tackles in Football. However I agree with you. To point about Football has been to emphasize the violence of the sport. Big hits make big news, and get shown over and over and over again. So they don't want the players to tackle smartly, they want them to tackle violently.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

I would say American Football is a more structured, more developed form of rugby. From what I've seen of rugby it's about the same, only the kicking game, liked most things in American Football is a set play, rather than in the flow of the match like in rugby.

The kicking game in Rugby can be a set play, for penalties and conversions. Personally, I prefer rugby over that American game because there are less set-plays: it has more flow to it (and also because the players are skillful enough to play safely without 6 inches of protective clothing ).

Anyway, apologies for hijacking this thread, I'll let you get on with discussing your sport in peace.

The padding is more because Football (and I will still call it football despite your complaints) is less about running and more about hitting. The hitting is far more fierce in football than rugby on a regular basis. Plays are more precise and and more physical. Some feel that the football helmet is actually the reason there are so many concussions in the NFL. Players are more willing to stick the head into someone with a helmet on than without one.

Players are precise in rugby: precise so they can tackle without risk of injury to either player but giving themselves the best chance of gaining the ball. They can tackle effectively without putting their heads in. If you don't need to hit somebody hard to bring them down, why bother, when you can just take their legs?

I know very little about your rugby. But what I do know about American football, had I the rugby mindset you describe above, I never would have seen the field.

I would say American Football is a more structured, more developed form of rugby. From what I've seen of rugby it's about the same, only the kicking game, liked most things in American Football is a set play, rather than in the flow of the match like in rugby.

The kicking game in Rugby can be a set play, for penalties and conversions. Personally, I prefer rugby over that American game because there are less set-plays: it has more flow to it (and also because the players are skillful enough to play safely without 6 inches of protective clothing ).

Anyway, apologies for hijacking this thread, I'll let you get on with discussing your sport in peace.

The padding is more because Football (and I will still call it football despite your complaints) is less about running and more about hitting. The hitting is far more fierce in football than rugby on a regular basis. Plays are more precise and and more physical. Some feel that the football helmet is actually the reason there are so many concussions in the NFL. Players are more willing to stick the head into someone with a helmet on than without one.

Players are precise in rugby: precise so they can tackle without risk of injury to either player but giving themselves the best chance of gaining the ball. They can tackle effectively without putting their heads in. If you don't need to hit somebody hard to bring them down, why bother, when you can just take their legs?

I know very little about your rugby. But what I do know about American football, had I the rugby mindset you describe above, I never would have seen the field.

You never would have caught anybody either.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

uh.. Go Rutgers! We cut over 60 million from our budget and so lost a lot of academics and 6 sports - one of the 6 being our halfway decent D1 Tennis team. But you know, we don't hesitate a minute to spend 120million to put some extra 10000 seats to our football stadium, double our head coach's pay from 1mill to 2mill just so he doesn't get taken by the florida whatever football team ... so I better hope when I say Rutgers, regardless of how good a degree or gpa I hold, my employer will at least think of me from a known school - known for football that is.Reason number 1,678 to hate Rutgers. I hate Rutgers. I hope they get destroyed. They are playing tommorrow agaist someone and they won't let me part at the stadium parking lot (whcih is where I park everywhere - I payed 200 bucks for a permit to park there and they won't let me park there now for this game).

Oh and of course I am not going to mention the 30000 a year at least that Rutgers pays all those who play on the football team, house them in 5star hotels, bring them 5 tutors for each class they take and cut every rule to just pass them.

uh.. Go Rutgers! We cut over 60 million from our budget and so lost a lot of academics and 6 sports - one of the 6 being our halfway decent D1 Tennis team. But you know, we don't hesitate a minute to spend 120million to put some extra 10000 seats to our football stadium, double our head coach's pay from 1mill to 2mill just so he doesn't get taken by the florida whatever football team ... so I better hope when I say Rutgers, regardless of how good a degree or gpa I hold, my employer will at least think of me from a known school - known for football that is.Reason number 1,678 to hate Rutgers. I hate Rutgers. I hope they get destroyed. They are playing tommorrow agaist someone and they won't let me part at the stadium parking lot (whcih is where I park everywhere - I payed 200 bucks for a permit to park there and they won't let me park there now for this game).

Oh and of course I am not going to mention the 30000 a year at least that Rutgers pays all those who play on the football team, house them in 5star hotels, bring them 5 tutors for each class they take and cut every rule to just pass them.

You make a great point, pawan. Rutgers really is a great case study, since making painted faced, drunken, yahoos a priority over its prestigious academic reputation. There are a litny of things I don't like about college sports (I could write a novella), and Rutgers would be in a chapter called "CFB Revenue Runs Riot".

I would say American Football is a more structured, more developed form of rugby. From what I've seen of rugby it's about the same, only the kicking game, liked most things in American Football is a set play, rather than in the flow of the match like in rugby.

The kicking game in Rugby can be a set play, for penalties and conversions. Personally, I prefer rugby over that American game because there are less set-plays: it has more flow to it (and also because the players are skillful enough to play safely without 6 inches of protective clothing ).

Anyway, apologies for hijacking this thread, I'll let you get on with discussing your sport in peace.

The padding is more because Football (and I will still call it football despite your complaints) is less about running and more about hitting. The hitting is far more fierce in football than rugby on a regular basis. Plays are more precise and and more physical. Some feel that the football helmet is actually the reason there are so many concussions in the NFL. Players are more willing to stick the head into someone with a helmet on than without one.

Players are precise in rugby: precise so they can tackle without risk of injury to either player but giving themselves the best chance of gaining the ball. They can tackle effectively without putting their heads in. If you don't need to hit somebody hard to bring them down, why bother, when you can just take their legs?

I know very little about your rugby. But what I do know about American football, had I the rugby mindset you describe above, I never would have seen the field.

I know very little about that American game, but if I went on a rugby pitch and played American-style, I'd be sent off within minutes.

I would say American Football is a more structured, more developed form of rugby. From what I've seen of rugby it's about the same, only the kicking game, liked most things in American Football is a set play, rather than in the flow of the match like in rugby.

The kicking game in Rugby can be a set play, for penalties and conversions. Personally, I prefer rugby over that American game because there are less set-plays: it has more flow to it (and also because the players are skillful enough to play safely without 6 inches of protective clothing ).

Anyway, apologies for hijacking this thread, I'll let you get on with discussing your sport in peace.

The padding is more because Football (and I will still call it football despite your complaints) is less about running and more about hitting. The hitting is far more fierce in football than rugby on a regular basis. Plays are more precise and and more physical. Some feel that the football helmet is actually the reason there are so many concussions in the NFL. Players are more willing to stick the head into someone with a helmet on than without one.

Players are precise in rugby: precise so they can tackle without risk of injury to either player but giving themselves the best chance of gaining the ball. They can tackle effectively without putting their heads in. If you don't need to hit somebody hard to bring them down, why bother, when you can just take their legs?

I know very little about your rugby. But what I do know about American football, had I the rugby mindset you describe above, I never would have seen the field.

I know very little about that American game, but if I went on a rugby pitch and played American-style, I'd be sent off within minutes.

So the two sports are similar, but not compatible. They are both intersting and fun to watch.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

I would say American Football is a more structured, more developed form of rugby. From what I've seen of rugby it's about the same, only the kicking game, liked most things in American Football is a set play, rather than in the flow of the match like in rugby.

The kicking game in Rugby can be a set play, for penalties and conversions. Personally, I prefer rugby over that American game because there are less set-plays: it has more flow to it (and also because the players are skillful enough to play safely without 6 inches of protective clothing ).

Anyway, apologies for hijacking this thread, I'll let you get on with discussing your sport in peace.

The padding is more because Football (and I will still call it football despite your complaints) is less about running and more about hitting. The hitting is far more fierce in football than rugby on a regular basis. Plays are more precise and and more physical. Some feel that the football helmet is actually the reason there are so many concussions in the NFL. Players are more willing to stick the head into someone with a helmet on than without one.

Players are precise in rugby: precise so they can tackle without risk of injury to either player but giving themselves the best chance of gaining the ball. They can tackle effectively without putting their heads in. If you don't need to hit somebody hard to bring them down, why bother, when you can just take their legs?

I know very little about your rugby. But what I do know about American football, had I the rugby mindset you describe above, I never would have seen the field.

I know very little about that American game, but if I went on a rugby pitch and played American-style, I'd be sent off within minutes.

So the two sports are similar, but not compatible. They are both intersting and fun to watch.

Don't back peddle now. You brought that oddity "rugby" and compared it to our padded-clad sport to the discussion, holmes.

I kind of agree with this point though. We have a sport called football and only a few times does the ball get kicked. Then we call the sport that everyone else calls football, in which the ball gets kicked all the time, in fact in which touch the ball with the hands or arms is a foul, which is much older and more established than our football, we call that soccer. But that's just the way it is, and no one is going to change it.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Don't back peddle now. You brought that oddity "rugby" and compared it to our padded-clad sport to the discussion, holmes.

I kind of agree with this point though. We have a sport called football and only a few times does the ball get kicked. Then we call the sport that everyone else calls football, in which the ball gets kicked all the time, in fact in which touch the ball with the hands or arms is a foul, which is much older and more established than our football, we call that soccer. But that's just the way it is, and no one is going to change it.

I think we have to consider the primitave origins of the sport as a derivative of rugby long before the inovation of the forward pass to discuss how it came to be known as football. I don't know what soccer means--obviously, its impact in the States came well after that of football, thusly football and football would be a bad idea. Football and soccer makes more sense, despite the fact that football looks nothing like what it did 120-some years ago.

Don't back peddle now. You brought that oddity "rugby" and compared it to our padded-clad sport to the discussion, holmes.

I kind of agree with this point though. We have a sport called football and only a few times does the ball get kicked. Then we call the sport that everyone else calls football, in which the ball gets kicked all the time, in fact in which touch the ball with the hands or arms is a foul, which is much older and more established than our football, we call that soccer. But that's just the way it is, and no one is going to change it.

I think we have to consider the primitave origins of the sport as a derivative of rugby long before the inovation of the forward pass to discuss how it came to be known as football. I don't know what soccer means--obviously, its impact in the States came well after that of football, thusly football and football would be a bad idea. Football and soccer makes more sense, despite the fact that football looks nothing like what it did 120-some years ago.

I think calling your game soccer would be more appropriate, or American Rugby even, because it is far closer to Rugby than to Football.